On 30 April 2013 08:31, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com> wrote:
> * adding this extra functionality is an image- or distro-decision> * at least automount-rule/script breaks other automount solutions causing> misleading kernel messages as 'VFS: could not find a valid V7 on sda'>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com>
If you're going to do this, please also do udev at the same time.
Ross

On 30 April 2013 10:09, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> On 30 April 2013 08:31, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com> wrote:>> * adding this extra functionality is an image- or distro-decision>> * at least automount-rule/script breaks other automount solutions causing>> misleading kernel messages as 'VFS: could not find a valid V7 on sda'>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com>>> If you're going to do this, please also do udev at the same time.
Oh, and the images in oe-core need to be fixed to bring in
udev-extraconf as required. The initramfs does already, but then we
need to have the debate on what other images should. core-image-sato
certainly should depend on it, but what about core-image-minimal and
so on?
Ross

Op 30 apr. 2013, om 11:11 heeft "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com> het volgende geschreven:
> On 30 April 2013 10:09, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:>> On 30 April 2013 08:31, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com> wrote:>>> * adding this extra functionality is an image- or distro-decision>>> * at least automount-rule/script breaks other automount solutions causing>>> misleading kernel messages as 'VFS: could not find a valid V7 on sda'>>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@googlemail.com>>> >> If you're going to do this, please also do udev at the same time.> > Oh, and the images in oe-core need to be fixed to bring in> udev-extraconf as required. The initramfs does already, but then we> need to have the debate on what other images should. core-image-sato> certainly should depend on it, but what about core-image-minimal and> so on?
If you want people to use those images as a base for their own image: don't drag in udev-extraconf

On 30 April 2013 10:21, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>> Oh, and the images in oe-core need to be fixed to bring in>> udev-extraconf as required. The initramfs does already, but then we>> need to have the debate on what other images should. core-image-sato>> certainly should depend on it, but what about core-image-minimal and>> so on?>> If you want people to use those images as a base for their own image: don't drag in udev-extraconf
Sato should as that's basically been part of the defined experience.
minimal was basically a strawman - obviously it shouldn't. It's the
others which are more debatable. A series that removes udev-extraconf
from udev and systemd, then adds it to core-image-sato in some way
sounds good to me.
Ross